No abstract

Summary Background The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. Methods For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Findings Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90–0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3–4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (−0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74–0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (−0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05–1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of −5·8% (−11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of −5·1% (−13·0 to 2·8). Interpretation This up...

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the potential of pre-treatment cell kinetic parameters to predict outcome in head and neck cancer patients treated by conventional radiotherapy.Materials and methods: Data from 11 different centers were pooled. Inclusion criteria were such that the patients received radiotherapy alone, and that the radiotherapy was given in an overall time of at least 6 weeks with a dose of at least 60 Gy. All patients received a tracer dose of either iododeoxyuridine (IdUrd) or bromodeoxyuridine (BrdUrd) intravenously prior to treatment and a tumor biopsy was taken several hours later. The cell kinetic parameters labeling index (LI), DNA synthesis time (Ts) and potential doubling time (Tpot) were subsequently calculated from¯ow cytometry data, obtained on the biopsies using antibodies against I/BrdUrd incorporated into DNA. Each center carried out their own¯ow cytometry analysis.Results: From the 11 centers, a total of 476 patients conforming to the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median values for overall time and total dose were 49 days and 69 Gy, respectively. Fifty one percent of patients had local recurrences and 53% patients had died, the majority from their disease. Median follow-up was 20 months; being 30 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that T-stage, maximum tumor diameter, differentiation grade, N-stage, tumor localization and overall time correlated with locoregional control, in decreasing order of signi®cance. For the cell kinetic parameters, univariate analysis showed that only LI was signi®cantly associated with local control (P 0:02), with higher values correlating with a worse outcome. Ts showed some evidence that patients with longer values did worse, but this was not signi®cant (P 0:06). Tpot showed no trend (P 0:8). When assessing survival in a univariate analysis, neither LI nor Tpot associated with outcome (P 0:4, 0.4, respectively). Surprisingly, Ts did correlate with survival, with longer values being worse (P 0:02). In the multivariate analysis of local control, LI lost its signi®cance (P 0:16). Conclusions: The only pretreatment kinetic parameter for which some evidence was found for an association with local control (the best end-point for testing the present hypothesis) was LI, not Tpot, and this evidence disappeared in a multivariate analysis. It therefore appears that pretreatment cell kinetic measurements carried out using¯ow cytometry, only provide a relatively weak predictor of outcome after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. q